Well yes. If you define all other economists, including Bofinger or Krugman as cargo-cultists, leaving only the members of your sect as economists, then you have majority.

But Krugman is an orthodox economist ~ the New Keynesians add some wrinkles to allow scope for active intervention "in the short run", but once the short run stickness has worked itself out, its the same basic model.

If that long run model is excluded, then all of its users are excluded in terms of their conclusions drawn from that model, irrespective of how much we may like their political views and their views of things when they do not rely on the falsified mainstream model.

And excluding that single model clearly does not limit the balance to a single model. There are a range of post keynesians, institutionalists, structuralists, a selection among radical political economists, general systems economics, and a number of other approaches not excluded by ruling out the repeatedly falsified long term model of the mainstream as being non-scientific due to its adherence to a repeatedly falsified long run model.

Keep him in the short run, and he's free to make sensible policy recommendations. Stretch it out to the long run, and his model starts interfering. This is where the absurdity of the "intertemporal government budget constraint" enters in.

The MMT'ers are right when they talk about the financial side of things. But I find that they sometimes get so caught up in debunking financial BS that they pay too little attention to the needs of the physical economy.

In particular, a few of them argue that the US' foreign balance is of no particular concern since its import costs are all denominated in US$. I disagree with that position, because the US' foreign balance position means that if other people start demanding hard currency for their stuff, they risk cutting off the flow of goods and services on which the American society depends to be in a state of not-revolution. Since I rather like my society to be in a state of not-revolution, and since I assume that this disposition is shared by most well-fed, reasonably affluent people, knowing that my society's continued being in a state of not-revolution depended on the largess of foreign powers with possibly divergent geopolitical interests...

The phrase that Bill Mitchell uses is, "so long as people accept the US dollar, ...", without delving into how long that might be and under what terms.

Which is true as far as it goes, and that is what you want from a theory on an aspect of the economy. After all, the problem with the underlying theory that Krugman uses is that its a closed model independent of money, and so the premise that money is neutral over the long term is built into the underlying logic of the model, entirely immune to falsification by empirical evidence. Grand Theory of Everything economic models have to date ended up being Grand Theory of Nothing In Particular models, running on false equivalences between the terms of the model and the actual phenomena observed in the real world.

I don't quarrel with his modeling approach. I just think that when he is formulating policy proposals, he should pay a little more attention to possible scenarios for other people beginning to not accept dollars than I usually see in them.

Of course, I realise that he's busy debunking sky-is-gonna-fall scaremongering about the dollar collapsing due to the sovereign deficit - which is entirely the wrong sort of deficit to cause a dollar collapse. So perhaps it is simply that he does not want to open himself to "gotcha" games by quote miners.

... accepting the US dollar. The terms of trade dropping, sure, but a floating exchange rate most commonly melts down when there is substantial debt denominated in foreign currency, and since the US is not in that position, a slide in the exchange rate without a meltdown would ensure that people keep accepting the US$.

How much disruption is caused if the US dollar drops in value, say, by 50% on a trade weighted basis ... and how much disruption is caused if the US$ is not accepted as payment ... are two categorically different questions.

In the latter case, you are talking about 2/3 of US petroleum supply no longer arriving, except on barter terms or by diverting funds from exports that have earned hard currency.